Here's what I think....as if it matters.... (Page 9)

The question you have to ask is: how effective would armed security really be?  Much of the security we put in place at various places - airports, borders, etc... is just theater.  It's making people feel better but not really beneficial beyond that.

If armed security results in a higher safety margin and the cost is bearable, then sure, add them.  But you have to accept that nothing is foolproof.  ON THE OTHER HAND, despite these attacks getting widespread media coverage, they are not that common compared to the number of children we have attending school safely every day.  Your chances of being in an incident are very very low.

Put it another way.  If a mass shooting can happen at Ft. Hood, a military base, with soldiers who have seen combat, it can happen anywhere.  Physical security is not and never will be a complete solution.

I think that sometimes armed security would be effective, and sometimes it wouldn't be.  There are always ways to bypass security, but then again, a crazy dude with a gun who decides to carry out an attack may not think it through particularly well.

Re the 400,000,000 guns, there are nine fewer out there today.  I imagine that the rest of the nation is getting incidents like this right now:  http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_22208676/alleged-threats-against-multiple-elementary-schools-lands-los

On the news this a.m.  Theater shooting, shooter taken down by armed off duty cop working security

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Police-investigate-gunfire-at-movie-theater-4122668.php?cmpid=twitter

I understand that you were throwing out ideas. I was just trying to point out counter-arguments and make the point that it is very hard to legislate common sense and responsibility. 

My #3 was in reference to the other residents of the home, not the mentally ill person. Yes they always ask if you have been treated for a mental illness before you buy a gun and the person diagnosed should not be allowed to buy a gun. I was referring to your idea of denying everyone that lived with the mentally ill person their individual 2A. Would be hard to pass and very hard to enforce, and I am not sure it is right to deny one person their constitutional right just because they live with someone who has been legally denied that right, although I do see the purpose. 

It's actually a good point. I do not mean to be dismissive of everything. No, we can not protect ourselves from everything, all the time. So we should not even try... no, of course we should try.

I have no illusion that criminals CAN'T get guns just because we do back ground checks... but I am OK with back ground checks because we should not make it EASY for criminals to buy guns. If they want to buy them illegally, that's on them. I mean it is the "least" we can do.

So if we secure schools, well they might go someplace else... or obviously, if a very intent person wanted to assault a school... well it will never be Ft. Knox.... but that does not mean we should make it an EASY target. If they want to go to a mall, well that's on them. But as a society, it we want to make the most vullnerable and precious resources we have safe... then we can go a long way to not make public schools easy targets and it won't require guard dogs, razor wire, or towers.

Yeah, and you... and others... use "but they want to take away my god given FREEDOMS" whenever the option of not letting you do whatever you want, whenever you want, is raised.

Now, do we both feel better?

I am suggesting that yes, guns should be regulated. Or are you suggesting that anyone, regardless of age/history/etc. be able to get them at costco, family sized, with no restrictions?

And yes, better security, so that those who are walking around with unlicensed guns be stopped.

And you can ignore as much as you like that there is a big difference between taking care of someone slandered after the fact, and someone shot after the fact, but I am going to have to disagree. Which is why the two cases are, as you said, apples and oranges, and need to be addressed differently.

That, I understand. Do you two understand that there is a difference in addressing the problem, after it has been abused, between yelling in a theater and shooting someone in the face?

I do. Which is why if that happens, we have the right to put a needle in their arm and execute them. Yes the harm done to the person is irreversible, but every single person in this country is innocent until proven guilty. Laws against you yelling fire in a theater do not actually stop you from doing it, it just punishes you after the fact and you can't claim it was your right. Yelling fire in a theater is not a capital offense either. Murder is. It would be nice if we could stop people from murdering others, but so far we have not come up with an answer.

Two points.

Regarding the first question, Israel does is. Not foolproof, but it has cut down on the anti-social people who do mass shootings. By the way, it is almost impossible to get a gun license in Israel unless you can show a specific need.

Regarding Fort Hood, not really a good example. It wasn't someone from outside, it was an "inside job". Same thing could happen in a police station.

So after talking to my son tonight at dinner, we came up with something we thought was interesting. Suppose we DID arm all the teachers. Would that help or hurt? I've already stated I think it's a terrible idea. Keep in mind these are just what if's.

There are some 60-65 million gun owners in the US. In 2011 there were some 24,000 gun accidents leading to injury or death.

So the accident rate is very low. Assuming 65 million gun owners, the accident rate is .037% per gun owner.

There are 3.7 million teachers in the US. Assuming they have the same accident rate as most gun owners (big assumption), that means 1,366 gun accidents committed by teachers.

Acceptable level of risk? Because anything we do to change the laws is going to come down to deciding what we believe is an acceptable level of risk.

Sure we can. We make it much harder for this to happen.

If I may answer a question with a question - why would you want one?

It's a versitile rifle. It can take small game, good accuracy... great depending on what you want. Target shoot, home defense, lots of parts, easy to work on... many reasons.

OK, but as we speak, people own fully automatic weapons with the right tax license and application. How many fully auto mass shootings have their been by these law abiding gun owners? (Hint: zero)

An AR-15 is not high powered, it is medium power cartrige that is illegal to use on medium game. Only small game. It's a .22 with more powder. Current bolt action hunting rifles shoot much much more powerful rounds capable of killing moose and grizzlies.

If I am required to have a liscence to carry concealed, then why not a license to have a semi-auto rifle... as a "shall issue" of course. How many mass shootings have happened from CCW holders. (Hint: 0)

But then you could argue that as you are not a threat to society then you should be able to be in possession of even the deadliest weapon....after all you're not a threat. 

I believe it comes to drawing a line in the sand.  This guy used an assault rifle, this is now what Joe Public believes to be the issue.  

In fact we all know it was the guy using the weapon who was the issue.  Had he not had access to this particular weapon what would have been the outcome - we don't know.  BUT if people believe it could have been prevented by this particular weapon not being legally available then action will no doubt be taken to remove this from the list of legal firearms.

Let's try not to turn this into comedy hour. Rabbit, Cyote, Badger, Mt. Lion.... small game. Many many people hunt small game. I said nothing about vermin. 

Tell that to the 35,000 people that loose their live in one every year. Tell that to the families of the 10,000 people killed by drunk drivers every year. Ask them if their dead family member or maimed child is acceptable to them.

have not read the whole thread (just home from work and not sure I can handle it)

how about tax the ammunition - I mean TAX as in HIGH and use the proceeds to pay for mental health?